Anti-intellectualism

[Whaleboy]

I dont think I've even used the word absolute. much less made it part of a subject in a post of mine?

You imply it with the words you use. Please, correct me if you meant that relativism can be refuted by anything less than proof of a qualitative absolute .

at any rate if u mean that we can not be ridiculously absolutely positively certain that our way is the bestest of the bestest evar. than I agree. BUT if u think that implies that no ways can be distinguished logically or on other merits besides some persons weird emotional response.

Oh they can be distinguished logically, in order to be indistinguishable they must be homogenous, which would preclude any judgement by our own predispositions. However, their differences are irrelevant until something is applied to make them relevant, and that is our subjective points of view. Outside of that, occams razor dicttates that they are equally worthless.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


You imply it with the words you use. Please, correct me if you meant that relativism can be refuted by anything less than proof of a qualitative absolute .



Oh they can be distinguished logically, in order to be indistinguishable they must be homogenous, which would preclude any judgement by our own predispositions. However, their differences are irrelevant until something is applied to make them relevant, and that is our subjective points of view. Outside of that, occams razor dicttates that they are equally worthless.

to be distinguishable and have equal value? yah ok...just walk both sides of the line why don't u.

and I most certainly dont need to prove an absolute to disprove what u r proposing. the mere idea that things have value that is distinguishable, even if I do not at present contain the knowledge of what an absolute might be does the job quite nicely.

[Whaleboy]

to be distinguishable and have equal value? yah ok...just walk both sides of the line why don't u.

I have big feet..

Let me put it this way.. you have two different paintings. They are clearly distinguishable, but their artistic value (the way that these things are in art) is merely a matter of perception of the beholder. There is no such thing as a "better" painting. We pretty much take this for granted in art, because it has no practical use. However, since we are removing the concept of use from this matter, we automatically default back to this position. All is art! I rather like that...

*Whaleboy tries to think of yet more simplistic ways to explain this*

and I most certainly dont need to prove an absolute to disprove what u r proposing

I'm not proposing it. I'm merely echoing it from philosophers from Protagoros onwards...

the mere idea that things have value that is distinguishable, even if I do not at present contain the knowledge of what an absolute might be does the job quite nicely.

No it doesn't. Firstly, I would use the term differences. Value implies validity, that is not the case here. Quite simply, all is equally valid and meaningless, when its not being judged by a subjective. I have made my point. There is an article on relativism and objectivity on my website, along with an email address if you wish to continue this further.

This has been spammed to stupidity now. Lets talk about anti-intellectualism.

Whaleboy is a good boy

EDIT: And a sleepy boy

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by yavoon


HOW do u discern this set? if everything to pick from is defined as undistinguishable then how does one make the choice? they just do? thats awfully lame approach.

who said anything about undistinguishable? just because there is no absolute right and wrong does not mean they are undistinguishable.
Some moral values are more in ones best interest than others. that does not mean they are 'more right' and other morals are 'more wrong'. It just means those morals are more appropriate for you for whatever reason. theres nothing lame about it. pretty understandable and straight foraward really. And if you think that you KNOW the absolute moral code of the universe, then you sir are a moron. You name me something you think is morally wrong, and ill name you some hypothetical society or person who would whole-heartedly disagree

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by BeBro


The fact that there are indeed several moral systems doesn't prove that they are all equally valid. It also doesn´t prove per se that there cannot be an absolute moral.

How exactly could a moral code be invalid? I mean, how can you say that someone's morals are 'wrong'? I dont think you can

[Ben Kenobi]

No. A flaw does not imply something that is not flawwed from which to view it as flawed. We do that from each other, but though I cannot see it, I know it must necessarily be flawwed, otherwise I would in fact be God.

Okay. Let's see if I have everything straight

Premise 1

There exists an absolute morality

Premise 2

Whaleboy is not God

Premise 3

Only God can know what constitutes the absolute morality

Therefore, Whaleboy cannot know what constitutes the absolute morality, because he is not God.

Now, again you still run into my former point. In order for you to maintain that your conscience is flawed, it does presuppose the first premise, that there exists an absolute morality.

However, I would also dispute Premise 3. It does follow that only God would know the absolute morality perfectly, it does not rule out an imperfect knowledge of an absolute morality. This comes from our conscience, which though flawed, still contains portions that will be true. As we learn more, the portion that is true should be able to distiguish itself more and more from what is not true.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drogue
Self-obsessed does not have to mean either selfish or feel superior:

Self-obsessed means they are obsessed about the effect something has to them.
Selfish means they always try to do what's best for them.
Feeling superior means they think they are better than others.

I need to disagree with some of the definitions here.

"Egotistical" means a person has way too much self-importance. "Self-obsessed" is an obsession with oneself, not about the effect something has to them. "Selfish" is placing one's interest above the interest of others.

With these definitions, it seems somebody who is self-obsessed is necessarily selfish.

[Flip McWho]

I'm thinking one of the words you're looking for is self-interested. Everbody is self-interested but not everybody is selfish.

[Urban Ranger]

Self-interested yes, but not self-obsessed, egotistical, or selfish.

[Whaleboy]

Okay. Let's see if I have everything straight

Premise 1

There exists an absolute morality

Premise 2

Whaleboy is not God

Premise 3

Only God can know what constitutes the absolute morality

Therefore, Whaleboy cannot know what constitutes the absolute morality, because he is not God.

Dude, you take yourself too seriously! I was joking!

Now, again you still run into my former point. In order for you to maintain that your conscience is flawed, it does presuppose the first premise, that there exists an absolute morality.

I can say that I am flawed from the perspective of other subjectives and pseudo-objectives in my daily contexts with which I can empathise (because we as humans have variant capabilities of perceiving objectively, in other words, independent of the self... it develops at about 6 months with object permanence and again between 3 - 5 with the theory of mind). I do not need to presuppose a godhead, or an absolute/infinite objective with which to compare myself, because a) I cannot know it by definition thus it is irrelevant and b) there is no evidence for its existence, and my argument certainly does not imply it.

However, I would also dispute Premise 3. It does follow that only God would know the absolute morality perfectly, it does not rule out an imperfect knowledge of an absolute morality. This comes from our conscience, which though flawed, still contains portions that will be true. As we learn more, the portion that is true should be able to distiguish itself more and more from what is not true.

Well in the 3000 odd year history of philosophy, nobody yet has been able to come up with that truth, and in order for it to be known, it cannot be disputed and should reasonably be an inherently logical theory, that cannot logically be refuted. That precludes all notion of human perception, logic itself, and frankly, the abilities of a finite being to know infinity. You claim an absolute morality can exist? Show me how. I take absolute to mean true everywhere, inherent objective value (which itself brings in infinity), and thus irrefutable by a different logical context.

With these definitions, it seems somebody who is self-obsessed is necessarily selfish.

I concur as I do not think that altruism exists, but that does nothing to imply a sense of superiority. You need to show as a generalisable and definable property that people that are self-obsessed believe themselves superior to others. You won't be able to do so because this thread has shown that people who consider themselves self-obsessed and whose actions are motivated by the self, need not and in my case, do not, consider themselves superior to others. All you can infer from that is that "one is landed with this body and this life, we might as well enjoy it", which is the mechanism for selfishness. Nowhere there is a belief in superiority as a premise for selfishness, and though that may be the case, the other way around, it is a case of necessary and sufficient conditions, and being self-obsessed is not a sufficient condition for thinking oneself superior.

Self-interested yes, but not self-obsessed, egotistical, or selfish.

No. There is a great deal of psychological evidence, especially in terms of evolutionary psychology, that altruism simply does not exist and everything we do, is motivated by self interest. To use a simplistic Freudian term, that self interest can lie in the id, ego or superego, or the genes, or the culmination of our "programming" of nature and nurture etc etc, but it has the result that nothing we do does not have beneficial qualities for us, and it is those beneficial properties that are the primary motivation, though of course we politely justify otherwise for the sake of PC. This is basically a poster-boy for emotivism.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I need to disagree with some of the definitions here.

"Egotistical" means a person has way too much self-importance. "Self-obsessed" is an obsession with oneself, not about the effect something has to them. "Selfish" is placing one's interest above the interest of others.

With these definitions, it seems somebody who is self-obsessed is necessarily selfish.

Even so, you can still be obsessed with yourself, but not put your interests above others. I could be obsessed with myself, but in doing harm to myself. I could be obsessed with myself, how I feel, who I am, but always put other's feelings ahead of mine. Which would be partly true for me.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Kramerman

How exactly could a moral code be invalid? I mean, how can you say that someone's morals are 'wrong'? I dont think you can

I wrote in another thread a while ago that it is not justified to deny eg. women the right to vote with the justification that they are somehow "inferior" or too stupid etc., because there is no evidence for this.

Still, Switzerland needed until the 1970ies to grant women that right. Years before a common view in Switzerland (amongst the men of course) was that women are too emotional, so they would act irresponsible when be allowed to vote. If the swiss men were right in their belief that women cannot be good democrats - why did they change their system? And can both options ("women should be allowed to vote, because they are as able as men" as well as "women should not be allowed to vote, because they are not as able as men") at the same time be equally valid?

Then you (and those guys in Switzerland who finally allowed the women to vote) have logically no basis to decide, and I'm not into pure emotivism Whaleboy favorizes, which would make the decision just a matter of like or dis-like.

There could be other examples - eg. how can you logically justify a system of Apartheid if genetically all humans have only slight differences, so that you cannot seriously speak of inferior or superior races?

If a moral system is built on stupid justifications I'd say it makes no sense to hold those views, and I don' understand why such views should be seen as equally valid to those which are better justified. I do not need to claim that moral is absolute or universal for saying a stupid justification is not a good basis for a moral system.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


No. There is a great deal of psychological evidence, especially in terms of evolutionary psychology, that altruism simply does not exist and everything we do, is motivated by self interest.

And then there is a German "Lexikon der Biologie" (an encyclopaedia of biology) which says otherwise.

[Kramerman]

Still, Switzerland needed until the 1970ies to grant women that right. Years before a common view in Switzerland (amongst the men of course) was that women are too emotional, so they would act irresponsible when be allowed to vote. If the swiss men were right in their belief that women cannot be good democrats - why did they change their system? And can both options ("women should be allowed to vote, because they are as able as men" as well as "women should not be allowed to vote, because they are not as able as men") at the same time be equally valid?

Im talkin from a moral perspective. One of those systems may indeed work better (probably the one allowing women to vote due to making them happy and having a larger pool of ideas and veiwpoints and such), and the one that works better is probably the one you would want to have (but not necessarily, if your society's perspective is predisposed against it). But from a moral standpoint neither one is more good or evil than the other. They are indistinguishable morally, because whos to say its morally wrong to deny women to vote? In some societies it could be seen as evil for women to participate in politics. are they wrong? who are you to say that they are wrong and you right? do you see what i am trying to say?

Then you (and those guys in Switzerland who finally allowed the women to vote) have logically no basis to decide,

thats false. morally, we really could not say which system is ABSOLUTELY more good (as apposed to evil). But we could try and determine (either thru social-science or whatever) which system is more effective. This has nothing to do with relative morals, merely common sense. However, just because something is more effective, does not make it morally superior, do you see what i am trying to say?

[Whaleboy]

I wrote in another thread a while ago that it is not justified to deny eg. women the right to vote with the justification that they are somehow "inferior" or too stupid etc., because there is no evidence for this.

A position I disagree with, though, like every position, it can be backed up by logic, and refuted by it, the same as any other.

Then you (and those guys in Switzerland who finally allowed the women to vote) have logically no basis to decide, and I'm not into pure emotivism Whaleboy favorizes, which would make the decision just a matter of like or dis-like.

Easy there. You have a basis to decide, but that is merely down to your own opinions, which have their roots in emotivism.

There could be other examples - eg. how can you logically justify a system of Apartheid if genetically all humans have only slight differences, so that you cannot seriously speak of inferior or superior races?

I cannot. A non-relativist can, and as a relativist, I have to respect that his opinion, no matter how much it disagrees with mine, is equally valid. I'll still argue with him into the ground though

If a moral system is built on stupid justifications I'd say it makes no sense to hold those views, and I don' understand why such views should be seen as equally valid to those which are better justified. I do not need to claim that moral is absolute or universal for saying a stupid justification is not a good basis for a moral system.

The whole point is the relativism renders moral systems irrelevant except as an extension of each individual beholder. Please differentiate between and a position and its justification. Each position has the capacity for equal (if not the same) justification as another.

Are you suggesting that out of context, a position can be more logically valid than another? Even though you have not applied logic to it? It's sort of like Schrodingers cat.

And then there is a German "Lexikon der Biologie" (an encyclopaedia of biology) which says otherwise.

Quotes please.

Drogue: Good point.

[Whaleboy]

Kramerman:

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by BeBro

There could be other examples - eg. how can you logically justify a system of Apartheid if genetically all humans have only slight differences, so that you cannot seriously speak of inferior or superior races?

If a moral system is built on stupid justifications I'd say it makes no sense to hold those views, and I don' understand why such views should be seen as equally valid to those which are better justified. I do not need to claim that moral is absolute or universal for saying a stupid justification is not a good basis for a moral system.

there is a difference between justification and real cause for. Many people justify slavery and segregation and such with things like genetic inferiority, but in reality their hatred is based on something else. the fact is that slavery and stuff put one group of people in a disadvantage while it put others in an advantage. The people in advantage wanted to keep that advantage because it is obviously in their favor. Can you say that is morally wrong? Its the same thing with aristocracy and the poor. one group is in advantage, the other disadvantage. someone (like Marx, for example) may see this disparity as evil. Another (someone in the aristocracy, or hoping to be there some day) can just as easily see that inequality as pefectly fine. who is morally right? i dont believe you can absolutely say who is morally more right. You can think holding people in bondage or as second class citizens is morally wrong, and in your microcosm that verywell may be true (i know it is in mine). But it is naive to say that that is universally immoral, just because you think it isnt properly justified. remember, justifications are one thing, true reasons are much more and much more difficult to ascertain and understand

[Kramerman]

Bebro, im not trying to change your views or tell you your wrong or anyhting. far from it. maybe there are absolute morals, who am i to say? it just makes sense to me that morals are relative, and until an absolute set of morals are scientifically proven (if possible) or something like that, i am likely to continue believing this which makes so much sense to me.

and tho i believe morals to be relative, i do in fact have my own personal code. its just something i live by because it works for me (especially in my society.... if my personal code found murder to be good and fun and sacred, id be in trouble here in America ), but i KNOW it not to be more 'good' than anyone else's. Its just my preference. I dont push my personal code on anyone, as i would expect htem not to push there's on me. however, for me to be most successful, indeed for most people to be most successful in life, we have to come together under an arbitrary set of morals (such as the US constitution lays foundation for here in my country) that works best for us. again, does that make it universally morally right? of course not. others are likely to find a society completely backward to our own that in their eyes works just as well ofr them. its all just relative

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Kramerman
Im talkin from a moral perspective. One of those systems may indeed work better (probably the one allowing women to vote due to making them happy and having a larger pool of ideas and veiwpoints and such), and the one that works better is probably the one you would want to have (but not necessarily, if your society's perspective is predisposed against it). But from a moral standpoint neither one is more good or evil than the other. They are indistinguishable morally, because whos to say its morally wrong to deny women to vote?

I know this argument, but I don't say that one or the other choice just leads to a more "workable" system. I say a system which is not really justified (no evidence that women are indeed inferior) is in itself not the same as a system which is better justified. Then simply it makes no sense to choose the option which is not justified when you have to make a choice, like the Swiss.

In some societies it could be seen as evil for women to participate in politics. are they wrong? who are you to say that they are wrong and you right? do you see what i am trying to say?

If the Swiss guys changed their law because they thought in the 1970ies it is wrong to deny women this right - why should I not say they were wrong before, when they indeed denied that right?

thats false. morally, we really could not say which system is ABSOLUTELY more good (as apposed to evil). But we could try and determine (either thru social-science or whatever) which system is more effective. This has nothing to do with relative morals, merely common sense. However, just because something is more effective, does not make it morally superior, do you see what i am trying to say?

The argument about the women has nothing to do with efficiency. I could assume that it is rather ineffective to have a democratic vote at all, so totalitarian rule would be most effective (I don't really think so). The argument about the women just says a view which cannot be justified is not a safe position to take, therefore not equal to a view that can easily be justified. Yes, that is not a moral argument, but it can be used on a moral system.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Kramerman
Bebro, im not trying to change your views or tell you your wrong or anyhting. far from it. maybe there are absolute morals, who am i to say? it just makes sense to me that morals are relative, and until an absolute set of morals are scientifically proven (if possible) or something like that, i am likely to continue believing this which makes so much sense to me.

I would not try to force my view on others too - I just post what I think about it. I mainly post here to find out if my own views make any sense

Please note that I do NOT claim that there is an absolute moral (I simply do not know it) - but this does not lead me to believe that all morals are equal. They are human constructs, and as such not ultimate truths.

So, if I say view A is not justified, I don't say at the same time (the better justified) view B is absolute. I just say A is out, but B could still be replaced by an even better justified view - and so on, and so on.

[Whaleboy]

BeBro: I would counter that and ask you the question; baring in mind that we agree that absolutes are irrelevant, would you agree that logic has the capacity to support or refute any position to an equal though different degree, and if not, why not? It is my view that it is necessarily the case for logic to be able to support or refute each view equally, since there is no-one logical position.

The difficulty is that we, as humans, for various reasons, emotive or otherwise, find it easier to back up or refute some positions than others. For example, a postmodern liberal like myself finds it easier to refute apartheid than, say, a 1930's Nazi. That does not change the capacity of that position to be supported however.

[BeBro]

Whaleboy, about altruism:

http://www.wissenschaft-online.de/abo/lexikon/bio/2546 (German)

I don't want to translate it all, but it says some forms of altruism are indeed only a matter of self-interest. However, later it says also:

Beispiele für nicht auf Kooperation beruhenden Altruismus auch nicht Verwandten gegenüber sind lediglich für den Menschen belegt, wobei hier die Bereitschaft zu altruistischem Verhalten durch Erziehungsstil und Vorbildverhalten der Bezugspersonen beeinflußt wird.

My (probably bad) translation: Examples for Altruism not based on cooperation, and not directed to relatives are known for humans, and the will to act altruistic can be influenced by education, and by behaviour of the "Bezugspersonen" ---> no idea how to translate that, they mean persons like parents, teachers, but also more general personal idols etc.

[Whaleboy]

Thanks for translation, but even such a thing as education or obligation, and the satisfaction of that is fullfilling programming of some description, which we do for our own self interest. Even if we followed some internal psychological directive to be wholly unselfish, the act of following it has inherent self interest.

[Spiffor]

Whaleboy:

This thread has ballooned impressively since I left a few days ago. I cannot answer about everything written here, and I haven't read everything in it (especially the last pages about relativism).

So, here, I'm replying to your replies to me. Maybe some of it has already been adressed in past posts.

You want me to drop the "ad-hominems". Maybe it's a language thing, but I don't think I have insulted you. OTOH, it is normal that I speak about you (more than your arguments), because this thread is dedicated to your experience.

If I am wrong in saying that you are arrogant, I apologize about that. However, I don't remember thinking you are arrogant, but rather that you do have an arrogant mindset, which is something much more subtle, and also much more difficult to precisely identify and to address.

The problem is that you seem to be the only one in this thread, along with Enigma_nova (whose unpopularity is easy to explain), who has lived such experiences. Our two other British intellectuals in this thread, Provost and Drogue, haven't experienced the same as you (at least not as strongly), and the countless non-Brit intellectuals also haven't experienced the same.

As a matter of fact, I don't think you are arrogant with us, because you seem to hold us on the same level as you. I am under the impression that you come here thinking "I'm gonna discuss with my equals".
What I'm worried about, is that with all your talk about elitism, you are led to get a know-it-all role with the laymen. I don't mean you sound blatantly snobbish or so. Again, a know-it-all behaviour can be very subtle, it can simply come from the (maybe unconscious) premise your target is supposed to listen to you more than you're supposed to listen to him.

Now, you tell us some people you don't know at all pick on you while you are reading. It's obvious you couldn't have possibly antagonized them, whatever your behaviour could be. It's obvious such an occurence cannot be your fault, but theirs.
But it also raises a question from me: Could you not be too sensitive about it? In your reply to my post, you seemed strongly offensed by my "ad-hominems" (w00t, I had never been compared to Fez before ), and you even mention I should be "very careful". I couldn't help but thinking of a guy enraging in front of his computer .

I'm maybe completely wrong, but it hints to a high sensitivity to offenses. I remembered yesterday that I, too, was once bothered by three drunkard my age making fun of me because I was reading a serious book and wearing glasses. For me, it is barely a memory (I only recall it when people tell me about how unsafe the parisian metro is ), but I wonder if, for you, it wouldn't be yet another accusatory proof that intellectuals are horribly discriminated against.

Before yelling "ad-hominem" at me, please remind the above is a question.

[BeBro]

I searched for a similar English source, found this.

The last part is especially about how "real" altruism is:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

It suggests that there is much more than pure self-interest

[Spiffor]

Enigma_nova:

Thanks for your patient answer. Such a reply is surpising from you, but it is welcome.

As for calling the nonlisteners "ignorant": do not forget ignorants are senn in a bad light in our society (despite what crap TV and tabloids make it look like). Most ignorant people feel a shame, or at least a feeling of inferiority toward the more educated /smarter people.

Imagine a second Kaak, Hobbes, or one of the few good looking guys of 'Poly coming here, and speaking about us ugly people, using the word "ugly" everytime they refer to somebody else than them; but they would be sometimes saying "but that's OK, you're not inferior, you're just different".

Well, you can expect Kaak and Hobbes to become quickly unpopular around here if they do so And for a reason: by calling to the feeling of ugliness, many of us will be reminded of their own physical complexes (I mean, just look at the picture thread, 95% of 'Poly is looking like an average geek)

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


I have big feet..

Let me put it this way.. you have two different paintings. They are clearly distinguishable, but their artistic value (the way that these things are in art) is merely a matter of perception of the beholder. There is no such thing as a "better" painting. We pretty much take this for granted in art, because it has no practical use. However, since we are removing the concept of use from this matter, we automatically default back to this position. All is art! I rather like that...

*Whaleboy tries to think of yet more simplistic ways to explain this*



I'm not proposing it. I'm merely echoing it from philosophers from Protagoros onwards...



No it doesn't. Firstly, I would use the term differences. Value implies validity, that is not the case here. Quite simply, all is equally valid and meaningless, when its not being judged by a subjective. I have made my point. There is an article on relativism and objectivity on my website, along with an email address if you wish to continue this further.

This has been spammed to stupidity now. Lets talk about anti-intellectualism.

Whaleboy is a good boy

EDIT: And a sleepy boy

distinctions w/o differences are meaningless. u r saying the paintings aren't identical. but u have no way in which to chose one over the other.

and for like the third time u use inane non-moral choices to prove ur morality. this is getting tiresome. "omg favorite color is subjective so so is killing people!." I've arleady mentioned this once. obviously u think everytime u repeat a tired analogy it gets better.

and for the sanity of all here. lets not start throwing arguments of authority at each other. or we're going to become cut n paste artists. ur already "reffering" me somewhere and "citing" other ppl. do u think everyone agrees w/ the ppl u r citing? cuz if u make me go and find the ppl who don't I'm gna be annoyed w/ u.

[Kramerman]

(I mean, just look at the picture thread, 95% of 'Poly is looking like an average geek)

hooah geeks!

[Whaleboy]

So, here, I'm replying to your replies to me. Maybe some of it has already been adressed in past posts.

You want me to drop the "ad-hominems". Maybe it's a language thing, but I don't think I have insulted you. OTOH, it is normal that I speak about you (more than your arguments), because this thread is dedicated to your experience.

Hmmm, I wasn't really talking about myself, rather using my experiences as examples. I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression, and therein must surely lie the misunderstanding.

If I am wrong in saying that you are arrogant, I apologize about that. However, I don't remember thinking you are arrogant, but rather that you do have an arrogant mindset, which is something much more subtle, and also much more difficult to precisely identify and to address.

Hmmm, I take as analogous to that being bloody minded? If so, then bang on! However, I don't think that's the cause of people targetting me. Like I said, I'm not outwardly arrogant or anything, and in terms of dealing with people, I'm always friendly. I am regarded by most people as pretty cool (I'd hope ) but its just this hardcore of townie piercing monkeys .

The problem is that you seem to be the only one in this thread, along with Enigma_nova (whose unpopularity is easy to explain), who has lived such experiences. Our two other British intellectuals in this thread, Provost and Drogue, haven't experienced the same as you (at least not as strongly), and the countless non-Brit intellectuals also haven't experienced the same.

Sometimes, methinks its luck of the draw. And I am willing to concede in many but not all cases, when one is attacked for something, one will accentuate that fact, but I don't believe that to be either common enough or general enough for me to be considered an exception to the rule.

As a matter of fact, I don't think you are arrogant with us, because you seem to hold us on the same level as you. I am under the impression that you come here thinking "I'm gonna discuss with my equals".

Aww thanks! I'm glad that you understand!

What I'm worried about, is that with all your talk about elitism, you are led to get a know-it-all role with the laymen. I don't mean you sound blatantly snobbish or so. Again, a know-it-all behaviour can be very subtle, it can simply come from the (maybe unconscious) premise your target is supposed to listen to you more than you're supposed to listen to him.

Perhaps, and that could well be one root cause of anti-intellectualism in general, possibly fitting in with intimidation.

Now, you tell us some people you don't know at all pick on you while you are reading. It's obvious you couldn't have possibly antagonized them, whatever your behaviour could be. It's obvious such an occurence cannot be your fault, but theirs.
But it also raises a question from me: Could you not be too sensitive about it?

It's possible. I would imagine it is something of an irritation, you know what it's like when you're trying to concentrate etc.

In your reply to my post, you seemed strongly offensed by my "ad-hominems" (w00t, I had never been compared to Fez before ), and you even mention I should be "very careful". I couldn't help but thinking of a guy enraging in front of his computer

I was a little irritable that day . I take ad hominems to mean attacking the arguer, if not insults which is generally the most common form, but his experiences when they are not a direct premise for his argument etc. Since you thought that my experiences were a premise for my argument, I think we can put this down to misunderstanding .

I'm maybe completely wrong, but it hints to a high sensitivity to offenses. I remembered yesterday that I, too, was once bothered by three drunkard my age making fun of me because I was reading a serious book and wearing glasses. For me, it is barely a memory (I only recall it when people tell me about how unsafe the parisian metro is ), but I wonder if, for you, it wouldn't be yet another accusatory proof that intellectuals are horribly discriminated against.

Not really, I'm usually very thick skinned except when I'm concentrating. I have three little brothers, I should be reasonably good at dealing with irritation.

Before yelling "ad-hominem" at me, please remind the above is a question.

It suggests that there is much more than pure self-interest

Perhaps, but that is one publication, and this is all a question of definition.

distinctions w/o differences are meaningless. u r saying the paintings aren't identical. but u have no way in which to chose one over the other.

Yes you do, you choose which non-identical painting you prefer, as if the image of your minds ideal painting resides within your head, and you choose the painting closest to that.

and for like the third time u use inane non-moral choices to prove ur morality. this is getting tiresome. "omg favorite color is subjective so so is killing people!." I've arleady mentioned this once. obviously u think everytime u repeat a tired analogy it gets better.

Your point?

and for the sanity of all here. lets not start throwing arguments of authority at each other. or we're going to become cut n paste artists. ur already "reffering" me somewhere and "citing" other ppl. do u think everyone agrees w/ the ppl u r citing? cuz if u make me go and find the ppl who don't I'm gna be annoyed w/ u.

WTF? You mean the Protagoros bit?

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/protagor.htm

Protagoras of Abdera was one of several fifth century Greek thinkers (including also Gorgias, Hippias, and Prodicus) collectively known as the Older Sophists, a group of traveling teachers or intellectuals who were experts in rhetoric (the science of oratory) and related subjects. Protagoras is known primarily for three claims (1) that man is the measure of all things (which is often interpreted as a sort of radical relativism) (2) that he could make the "worse (or weaker) argument appear the better (or stronger)" and (3) that one could not tell if the gods existed or not. While some ancient sources claim that these positions led to his having been tried for impiety in Athens and his books burned, these stories may well have been later legends. Protagoras' notion that judgments and knowledge are in some way relative to the person judging or knowing has been very influential, and is still widely discussed in contemporary philosophy.

He's a philosopher. Not all people will agree with him. In philosophy, no-one has established a truth we call all agree with, except perhaps that the furthest you can reduce philosophy is the statement "there are only thoughts", or at least that, but needless to say that is merely a tautology like the rest of them. I'm not pulling authority on you, thats not in my nature unless you're being ridiculous. I am merely showing you the original relativist, and the fact that these are not merely my concoctions in answer to your previous inquiry. Try harder .

[yavoon]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Whaleboy





Your point?



WTF? You mean the Protagoros bit?

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/protagor.htm



He's a philosopher. Not all people will agree with him. In philosophy, no-one has established a truth we call all agree with, except perhaps that the furthest you can reduce philosophy is the statement "there are only thoughts", or at least that, but needless to say that is merely a tautology like the rest of them. I'm not pulling authority on you, thats not in my nature unless you're being ridiculous. I am merely showing you the original relativist, and the fact that these are not merely my concoctions in answer to your previous inquiry. Try harder .

thats all I get, a two word response on something pertinent and a huge paragraph on u luving to hear urself speak. and to top all the fun off we get the lil intellectual slide at the end.

maybe ur just upset ppl can see through ur passive aggressive nature.